Talk:Vasco da Gama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Improvement drive

Spice trade has been nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Come and support the article with your vote!--Fenice 06:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Bold

Expansion

To anyone that is interested in help expanding this either in the BioCOTW or possibly in the AID I gathered some links with reasonably extensive overviews. A lot of info is probably repeated. . [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7],[8],[9], [10]. We can also get information from The Lusiads online. Falphin 22:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

grammar

I'm skeptical that the double possessive "his brother's Vasco da Gama's" can possibly be correct. It surely doesn't sound right to this native U.S. English speaker. I think it should be "his brother Vasco da Gama's".4.236.240.20 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Vasco da Gama actually sailed for the Portugese and he died at sea by a hippo attack.

Cleanup and citation tags

I removed both tags today after spending several hours on cleanup and citation duty. I trust that the article's remaining opportunities for improvement are insignificant enough to merit removal of both tags. Historymike (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Prester John

Commissioned by King Manuel I of Portugal to find Christian lands in the East (the King, like many Europeans, was under the impression that India was the legendary Christian Kingdom of Prester John)

What is the source for the statement that King Manuel "was under the impression that India was the legendary Christian Kingdom of Prester John"? FilipeS 23:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That particular passage has been removed in subsequent revisions, but it is well documented that Portuguese monarchs in the fifteenth and sixteenth century were very much interested in finding Prester John. For further information, see Sanjay Subrahmanyam's The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama for starters. Historymike (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but that's not the same thing as saying that they were "under the impression that India was the legendary Christian Kingdom of Prester John". It's one thing to hold India as a possibility, it's another to be convinced that India is definitely the right place, without having checked. FilipeS (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We also can never assume to know what was in Manuel's head. Besides, the concept of "The Indies" meant everything from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula to the Indian subcontinent to even China in the minds of late medeival and early modern Europeans, as it was a catch-all phrase for points removed from the Mediterranean world. Historymike (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Small precision

Hi. Ha, ha, ha,you're hilarious(sarcastically)

Just a minor information from an opera fan. You mention under "Legacy" that the opera l'Africaine was performed by Placido Domingo, and that's right, but he's spanish, and not Italian as stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placido_Domingo

Thank you, and bravo for the high quality article! Estevao (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Elaurito (talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please make the correction Placido Domingo is a great singer but he is SPANISH, born in Spain and NOT Italian! (----)

Death

He died from eating. According to Disease Identification, Prevention, and Control by Barbara Hamann 3rd Edition on page 131 (October 1, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple elsie (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Carnage?

Why is there not more mention of the carnage of death and destruction da Gama left in his colonialist wake, particularly on his second Africa voyage in both East Africa and India? The carnage was inhuman and unprecedented, and all blessed heartily by the Portuguese king. Also, they set the example for Britain, Spain and Holland, who all followed behind. IMHO, the people caught in de Gama's horrible, blood-thirsty cross-hairs deserve more mention here than only in passing.Computer1200 (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Says who? feydey (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me get this straight. You're questioning the commonly held historical view that Vasco da Gama meted huge amounts of violence out on large amounts of people all over Africa and India? The first source for this view could be a simply world history survey like "The No-Nonsense Guide to World History" By Chris Brazier, a series of books endorsed by Oxford and The Guardian newspaper. I'll be adding some information from this book soon. Computer1200 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Good to see people interested in expanding and improving the article! feydey (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

vasco de gama was married and had six children. they all played an important role in history. two of them took their father's curiosity of exploring and one of them was appointed governoe of Sines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.199.67 (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe a bit of historical perspective (and culture) is needed for not judging the acts of our ancestors with the ethics of today. Vasco da Gama voyages are historically important despite the sins he has committed in the name of his religion and national interest. But that is equally true for many other relevant figures of the past (should I mention some?). I'm also surprised to learn that the British, Spanish and Dutch all followed the Portuguese example of carnage and cruelty. Maybe the Americans did the same with the indians in the 19th century? ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello,

I noticed some vandalism at the end of the first paragraph under the heading "Legacy".

Thanks 76.67.16.24 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Signature

I puzzled over the signature in the infobox for awhile, then consulted the source. The signature transliterates as ho cod almirante. The m and e in comde appear to have been omitted by Vasco da Gama himself. There is also an error in this traced image: the first a in almirante is omitted. David spector (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way to add this iinformation to the infobox and fix the image? David Spector 21:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Majid

All the sources I have read indicate that the navigator was not Ibn Majid . Watkins "Unknown Seas" pg 229 Subrahmanyam "The Career and Legend of Vasco de Gama" pg 228-8 StevenFay 01:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Why did the goose cross the road? It was the chicken'd day off!!!

In Arab sourses it is Ibn Majid who are cursed in many sourses! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewoone (talk • contribs) 00:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and politics in subsection 'Acts of cruelty'

Vasco da Gama was forced into acts of aggression with competing traders resulting in collateral damage to local inhabitants. During his second voyage to Calicut, Gama stopped a ship of Muslim pilgrims at Madayi travelling from Calicut to Mecca. Described by the Portuguese historian Gaspar Correia as one that is most unpleasant, Gama emptied the contents of the ship with over 400 pilgrims on board including 50 women, and burnt the ship that unfortunately led to the demise of all pilgrims, the owner and an ambassador from Egypt due to lack of proper exit. They offered their wealth which 'could ransom all the Christian slaves in the Kingdom of Fez and much more' but could not be helped. Gama helplessly looked on through the porthole and saw the women bring up their gold and jewels and holding up their babies pleading gulty of violation of portuguese sovereignity over international and Indian waters. It was nevertheless condemned by a few as a foul act. After requesting the removal of Muslims from Calicut to the Hindu Zamorin, the latter sent the high priest Talappana Namboothiri (the very same person who conducted Gama to the Zamorin's chamber during his much celebrated first visit to Calicut in May 1498) for talks, Gama discovered him to be a spy and ordered appropriate punishment to the priest (severence of body parts and attachement of tissues from beings having non- humanoid characteristics) befitting a spy.

None of the material under the subtitle 'Acts of cruelty' is unreferenced. Neither are they intended to malign a historical figure. Yes, it was important to make the hagiography a critical biography. The sentence 'It would not be an exaggeration to surmise that the high seas of the Indian ocean had not seen the shedding of innocent blood until the arrival of Gama' does not mean no 'innocent blood has been shed since the beginning of time' but only that travellers and traders in the Arabian sea never indulged in violent acts as common practice since the time of Kerala's and India's trade with other ancient empires for millennia until the arrival of Gama. Any information (of course referenced) to the contrary would be appreciated. It therefore is not a political statement.

The lion might be the king of the jungle. But he also kills innocent cubs. Wikipedia has always accepted both versions and wikipedia should continue to do so.

And of course please consider the above more neutral passage if that is neutral enough.

Choosetocount (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Since the editor who tagged section has not 'addressed the issue' and even after two weeks, is not interested in discussion, I presume the dispute is resolved and therefore the tag is being removed. Please avoid 'drive-by tagging'. thanks.Choosetocount (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.241.139.166, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Typo: navigator's name is Pedro Escobar; "E", not "W",

85.241.139.166 (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Favonian (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit (or more info) request: Too Young

By the time Gama was ten years old, these long-term plans were coming to fruition. Bartolomeu Dias had returned from rounding the Cape of Good Hope, having explored as far as the Fish River (Rio do Infante) in modern-day South Africa and having verified that the unknown coast stretched away to the northeast.

Gama woulda been 28 (or 19) when Diaz returned in Dec 1488. I expect something happened ["coming to fruition"] by 1470 (or 1479), but it ain't Diaz returning. 220.253.47.167 (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.70.43.186, 11 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} he was born 1469

72.70.43.186 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article cites a source for a birth year around 1460 and a source for a birth year of 1469, which is why both years are given. There are many things we can never be completely sure about, and da Gama's birth year is probably one of them. -- Donald Albury 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I concur with Donald Albury; as with may historical figures, we have to list ranges or multiple birthdates. I am, however, going to update the infobox to include both years. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What signature is that?

What signature is that? it certainly does not mean "Vasco da Gama". --Lecen (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is based on this. Yeah, it's not his name, but apparently his title, but called his "autograph" in the linked book. -- Donald Albury 14:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's just weird. It's not "Vasco da Gama" nor "Conde de Vidigueira". It's something like "[?]orod T [????]". Not Latin. It's archaic Portuguese, but even I can understand it and it's none of those names. --Lecen (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about 15th century Portuguese hands, but it certainly is hard to see how that is "Ho Comde Almirante". It's taken from what looks like a reliable source. I'll wait to see if someone else has some light to shed on this. If we can't clear it up, I'll support commenting out that image as not being useful to the article. -- Donald Albury 15:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A better one could be used, but it is "Ho Comde Almirante", missing at least the "A". It is an autograph, though. Titled people signed with the title. Before being made count, he used to sign: Ho Almirante Dom Vasquo... PPP71 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Charted waters???

Hello,

You understand that from Cape Verde onwards he and his crew had to follow a completely different route from the one used by Dias. Dias used latteen caravels and followed the coast line, Gama was testing the route with naus(round ships), the only ones that would make the commercial route profitable. Therefore, in order to avoid the adverse winds in gulf of Guinea, he had to make a large detour across the South Atlantic, coursing East, whenever possible, until, in the right latitude, he could landfall near the Cape. Problem is, to do so he took 3 months in the high seas, without any sight of land, in never before navigated waters, using only his astronomical instruments, probably facing mutiny, and succeeded - mathematically. Surely you are aware that this was attempted and achieved for the first time in history, and it is a masterpiece of oceanic navigation regardless the way you look at it. To put this in perspective, Columbus had only a month of open sea, with poop winds, and the two voyages from a nautical point of view cannot be compared. We could add, that as Dias only went as far as Rio do Infante, the coastal voyage till Melinde was done largely in uncharted waters to them. You can say that the Arabs mariners knew these East African waters (in fact, only till Sofala), but Gama didn't. Not to mention that he was sailing in some of the most dangerous coastal waters in the world and today a worldwide famous ship cemetery. Only in Melinde, he got help from the hence famous Arab pilot, which , as any student of Portuguese Overseas Expansion knows, was not Ibn Madjid, already dead in 1498. And not to mention that he had to solve the inbound voyage by himself. And because they were still learning the voyage was started in the wrong season, a very important fact if one takes into account that he was crossing two oceans, with variable wind patterns plus the problem of the monsoon.

In conclusion, I think that your nautical appraisal of his first voyage is not really objective.

The characteristics of his ships were never recorded, so you should remove that information. There were attempts to reconstruct the ships, but these are speculative exercises.

Using Portuguese sources and bibliography in a Portuguese subject will do you no harm...

The signature is Ho Comde Almirante, but the "A" is missing. You can get better ones in the net.

PPP71 (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All of this is very interesting, but in order for us to make any changes, you'll need to provide reliable sources to document them and thus make changes to the article. If you know of such sources, please provide them here so that we can verify that they meet the RS guidelines, and then we can see if/how to incorporate them. Note that we won't necessarily remove info from the article; instead, if two reliable sources disagree, then we have to present both, using WP:DUE to make sure that we give the proper weight to each argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This article could certainly be improved. Using Portuguese sources is fine, if you'd like to help, please do. The article's "nautical appraisal" of the first voyage doesn't seem as negative to me as it seems to be for you. Most of the points you raise seem already addressed in the article: It does not say Vasco followed Dias's coastal route south of Cape Verde. It points out the unlikely/impossibility of Ibn Madjid being the navigator in the Indian Ocean. Of course the wording could be improved and expanded.

I know that some of the negative remarks are sourced to Felipe Fernández-Armesto's book Pathfinders. He writes of Vasco's 3 month sail through the south Atlantic as deserving to be commended as unprecedented, but considers it "a demonstration of audacity rather than ability". He thinks Vasco's hope was to find westerly winds far enough south to avoid the Cape of Good Hope and its dangerous coast altogether. "Instead, he missed his latitude, made his easting too early, and fetched up on the wrong coast of Africa." Of course no one really knows what Vasco's plan was, or even much about his route through the south Atlantic. This article is more positive than Fernández-Armesto's book. The article says, for example, "This course proved successful and on November 4, 1497, the expedition made landfall on the African coast"--implying that Vasco intended to make landfall before reaching the cape.

One bit I'm not sure about is that he was "...seeking the South Atlantic westerlies that Bartolomeu Dias had discovered in 1487." I expect Dias experienced the westerlies to some degree, but can it really be said that he discovered them? He couldn't have known the westerlies would extend thousands of miles west into the Atlantic. Vasco obviously hoped they did, and they do, but I'm not sure the credit should go to Dias. I might add a request for a reference on this point. Pfly (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian and Pfly,

Therefore, taking all the above into account, we cannot state: It is to be noted that unlike Columbus or Magellan, Gama was never sailing in uncharted waters. He was not making a discovery as India was no terra incognita as it was already in contact with Europe, Africa and Asia for ages. The seafarers of African coast from where Gama set out for Calicut knew the routes and winds (he was never credited with the discovery of India, but instead with the discovery of the Maritime Route to India). Now, Armesto interpretations: 1) All sources state that his target in the first leg of the voyage was the Cape. They needed to see it, in order to certify themselves they weren't lost. So, avoiding the Cape was not an option. More, the expendable nau (nau de Aires Correia) was due to be destroyed in Aguada de São Brás, one day sailing from the Cape. 2) They were desperate to put in water, after 3 months in the sea (water starts to corrupt after 1 month), which they did before reaching the Cape. 3) In order to not miss the Cape and to put in water they did a landfall in the West Coast of Africa, but too much to the North (30 leagues), from where they sailed South always looking for water. 4)"Audacity rather than ability" is just a way to say he was a lucky stubborn man. Problem is there was no way around that course: that or failure. One point most people don't understand is that in those days captains didn't had to be mariners, and Gama, although not ignorant of the sea, by all means, was not a pilot. For that purpose he had aboard the best around, Pêro de Alenquer, the former master-pilot of Dias. The task of Gama was to be the supreme authority aboard, a representative of the king in all forms. And he was short of exemplar in this task, keeping the crew always in a tight order, avoiding a mutiny like the one which ruined Dias expedition, for instance. That "ability", which for Armesto suggests nautical ability, I suppose, is totally misplaced here, even if they had loads of it aboard.

One Portuguese source that you cannot overlook is the "Diary" of the expedition. If memory doesn't fails me, it was publish in English by the Hakluyt Society. And of course the 4 "Oriental" Portuguese chronicles of the first half of the XVIth century: Anónima, João de Barros, Gaspar Correia (which you quote) and Fernão Lopes de Castanheda, but these are in fact secondary sources. Castanheda, which I used for the comments above, is useful for an extra reason: it is the only Portuguese source that gives us some information on the ships: E um que era de cento e vinte toneladas, houve nome São Gavriel (Gabriel); e outro de cento, São Rafael. E comprou para ir com estes navios uma caravela de cinquenta tonéis a um piloto chamado Bérrio de que a caravela tomou o nome. (...) E por quanto nos navios da armada não podiam ir mantimentos que abastassem à gente dela até trêas anos, comprou el-rei uma nau a um Aires Correia de Lisboa que era de duzentos tonéis, para que fosse carregada de mantimentos até à Aguada de São Brás, e ali se despejaria e a queimariam. Fernão Lopes de Castanheda, História do Descobrimento e Conquista da Índia pelos Portugueses, I, Porto, Lello, 1979, pp.10-11. (1st ed. Coimbra, 1551; book I, chapter II, in case we find a different edition). Spelling modernized by me.

This is what I can say for now. I would like to add that, given the controversial nature of the subject, your article is far more objective and circumspect than many books around.

I took note of the westerlies problem, but I don't have my nautical history books with me right now. I expect I can add anything useful latter.

Cheers PPP71 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that bit about never sailing in uncharted waters doesn't seem right. I don't know very much about the rest apart from what I've read in Pathfinders. I was just pointing out where some of the criticism had come from. Pfly (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Shaljoseph, 31 March 2011

the malayalam film urumi described here is released all over the world on march 31 2011. in english as Vas co dagama tamil as pathinaitham noottrandu padaivaal. and it is a big hit. Shaljoseph (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done – Ajl^talk 23:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pilgrim ship incident

This is discussed in a separate heading, but also seems to be mentioned in the section "Second Voyage", with slightly different information given. If these are the same things, I suggest they be joined.

Domklyve (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to that revert about this ship incident, the books mentioned therein are authored by two of the most authoritative historians of India.I've linked the source citations to their wiki articles. NMKuttiady (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Please also provide the pages and quotes of the cited passage here on TP. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The pilgrim ship incident is covered in detail (with plenty of sources & references) in the 4th Armada page. I think that "Pilgrim Ship" section in this page should be retitled and rewritten as a general section on the perception/reputation of Vasco da Gama in India, and contrasted with the "Legacy" section (which seems to be written from the modern Portuguese perspective). The section should also note that the 16th C. Portuguese chroniclers themselves (esp. Gaspar Correia, but also Barros) had mixed feelings about Gama, and were quick to point out his impetuousness, quick temper and tendency towards cruelty. Gama's reputation in Portuguese circles wasn't all that great, until Camoes decided to hero-worship him unto Achilles. Walrasiad (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

incorrect and misleading

Hi,

I was checking this article when I noticed in the heading "legacy", the side picture says the Portuguese empire and it shows it in green and red. Somali coast was never a Portuguese empire. I wanted to change the text of it but it would mislead because it's in green and as you know, Brazil is also covered in green and Brazil was a portuguess empire. So can any one change it, (the somali coast that is) it was never a part of the empire of Portuguese.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.231.124 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

In part was more claimed land for Portugal than long lasting positions, but Mogadischu, Barawa, Berbera (Somaliland) were temporary occupied in several Portuguese expeditions holding some positions for some time indeed.--LuzoGraal (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

History of Kerala template?

I am very puzzled about the inclusion of the "History of Kerala" template. It is very unusual to have a template about a country or region in a biographical article (and vice-versa). If it was describing Portuguese-Kerala interaction or the colonial administration, I could understand. But this is just a biography of one sailor. Unless someone can give me a good reason to leave it in place, I am inclined to remove it. Walrasiad (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Discovered:

A new sea route to India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.246.109 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

Third voyage

"The intention was that he was to replace the incompetent Eduardo de Menezes as Viceroy"

Change Eduardo de Menezes to Duarte de Menezes

Agassi1 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Which one? Duarte de Menezes, 3rd Count of Viana (d.1464), first Portuguese captain of Alcácer-Ceguer, or Duarte de Menezes (fl.1520), captain of Tangier and 5th governor of Portuguese India. -- Donald Albury 00:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

'Return' section about da Gama's first voyage extremely unclear and contradictory

The first two paragraphs of the 'Return' section are extremely unclear as to exactly when da Gama did return to Portugal and how many ships made it back. Could someone who knows the facts and has the reference materials take a look and fix this? As it stands it is unacceptable for even a 'C' level article; the current version is quite contradictory about these important facts. Thanks. Jusdafax 03:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Better now? Walrasiad (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Many thanks... a substantial improvement! Jusdafax 09:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to add a link to the text

First English translation of Diario de viagem for Hakluyt Society (1898) http://www.archive.org/details/worksissuedbyha00unkngoog — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.10.242 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The Outward Route of South Atlantic Westerlies (and Return Route)

I put the excellent map of the India Run of authorship and publication by Walrasiad. Its permanence will be at the discretion of the major Editors of course. It seems to me important for the article, and taking into account that the maps of the Vasco da Gama´s voyage on wikipedia omit the Outward Atlantic Route (to the amazement of the Readers) - the route of the South Atlantic westerlies (Volta do Mar) who was still being discovered and explored (has been further off the Brazilian coast or further the center of the Atlantic Ocean on the voyage of da Gama) is one of the most important historical legacy of these voyages and of this voyage to the world and for the next expeditions towards the Indian Ocean and Asia, Brazil, and later into the Pacific Ocean going south. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuzoGraal (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

"Vasco da Gama's pioneering sea voyage to India is one of the defining moments in the history of exploration. Apart from being one the greatest pieces of European seamanship of that time - a far greater achievement than Christopher Columbus's crossing of the Atlantic - his journey acted as a catalyst for a series of events that changed the world." http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/vasco_da_gama_01.shtml - Shane Winser of The Royal Geographical Society Johndaker7 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This "request" is redundant with the one below. Will answer there. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

can you insert this quotation into the introduction section of the Da Gama article? Johndaker7 (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC) "Vasco da Gama's pioneering sea voyage to India is one of the defining moments in the history of exploration. Apart from being one the greatest pieces of European seamanship of that time - a far greater achievement than Christopher Columbus's crossing of the Atlantic - his journey acted as a catalyst for a series of events that changed the world." - The Royal Geographical Society

Link: ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/tudors/vasco_da_gama_01.shtml)

Not done for now: This quote would not be appropriate for the lead section. I might be open to inserting it into another section such as "Legacy", but I don't see how adding this quote would meet the Manual of Style guideline at WP:LEAD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ecuador?

The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph says that da Gama's voyage was longer than travelling round the world by the Ecuador. That doesn't make sense to me unless it's meant to say equator instead Elspooky (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. In Portuguese, "Equador" (the country "Ecuador") and "Equador" (the geographic line "Equator") spells the same. Probably a translation error. José Luiz ^talk 21:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

butcher of arabian sea

Vasco da gama was a bloodthirsty pirate and merciless murderer.

so why is a crater on moon named after him and thus not one Hitler ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.0.116 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Author Richard Hall: "With Calicut at his mercy ... da Gama told his men to parade the prisoners then hack off their hands, ears and noses. As the work progressed all the amputated pieces were piled in a small boat. The Brahmin who had been sent out by the Zamorin as an emissary was put into the boat amid its new gruesome cargo. He had also been mutilated in the ordained manner". As soon as Vasco da Gama was back in Lisbon after his first successful contact with India, the Groce King of Portugal, Dom Manuel, adopted a new and pompous title of "The Lord of the conquest navigation and commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia and India". Obviously, the safeguard this lordship and ensure his patent he hurriedly conveyed the news of the discovery of the "spices and christians" of India to the royal rivals of Castille and to The Holy See in Rome.

(source: Western Colonialism in Asia and Christianity - edited by Dr. M.D. David p. 11). Refer to Things They Don't Tell you about Christianity.)

The historian Gaspar Correa is quoted by Hall as to what the Vasco da Gama did next, thus: "When all the Indians had thus been executed (sic), he ordered them to strike upon their teeth with staves and they knocked them down their throats; as they were put on board, heaped on top of each other, mixed up with the blood which streamed from them; and he ordered mats and dry leaves to be spread over them and sails to be set for the shore and the vessels set on fire... and the small, vessel with the friar (brahmin) with all the hands and ears, was also sent ashore, without being fired". A message from da Gama was sent to the Zamorin. Written on a palm leaf, it told him he could make a curry with the human pieces in the boat. And the atrocities committed by Vasco da Gama and his men lives in infamy. The story is one of brutality, betrayal and colonial ambition.

(source: Empires of the Monsoon: A history of the Indian ocean and its invaders - By Richard Hall p. 198).

178.53.180.159 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- Copied from above: Maybe a bit of historical perspective (and culture) is needed for not judging the acts of our ancestors with the ethics of today. Vasco da Gama voyages are historically important despite the sins he has committed in the name of his religion and national interest. But that is equally true for many other relevant figures of the past (should I mention some?). I'm also surprised to learn that the British, Spanish and Dutch all followed the Portuguese example of carnage and cruelty. Maybe the Americans did the same with the indians in the 19th century? ;-). Unfortunately we have much worse and effective barbarian behaviour in our days. This type of anonymous and non-constructive comments do not add to the project. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is trying too hard to detract from Vasco da Gama's exploits. It paints him as being a vicious pirate, and even as having been somewhat unsuccessful in his voyages (if he had been, would the king have given him such great rewards?). In fact, comparing this article to Francis Drake's, it seems that Vasco da Gama has a worse track record (I've actually seen articles portraying Drake as a humane character, never mind that he was attacking merchant ships for a living...). There's no denying that these were violent times, and the Portuguese, like the Spanish and others, did some pretty awful deeds. But they were faced with violence as well, that is rarely retold or taken into account. And it's not fair to judge them by our standards, when killing for your religion was not only accepted but encouraged. The fact that we have people TODAY that embrace such ideologies, is much more disturbing. I'm not sure what exactly annoys some people about the Portuguese, that they feel the need to downplay their role in the history of humanity, especially with speculation about outside help (eg: using Arab maps that no one else knew about) or claims that someone else had already done all the "leg work" for them. Can we just accept that these people did something remarkable and extraordinary, even if they weren't perfect people? Thanks. 0cm (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just let me clarify that the brutal episodes described above are drawn from Portuguese sources - specifically eyewitnes accounts and chronicles of the 16th C. This is not an Indian or modern perspective looking back - the Portuguese of the time were not comfortable with Gama's penchant towards brutality.

On the other hand, much of the violence was really only meted out on Gama's second journey (the 4th Armada of 1502), where Gama was under orders to take revenge (for the Calicut massacre of 1500). Not having enough men for an actual confrontation, Gama's unusually high degree of violence on that trip had a strategic purpose of terrorizing the Malabar coast, to drive away all merchant shipping away from Calicut and intimidate the Zamorin into compliance. True, much of that brutality was gratuitous, reflective of Gama's own impetuous character and violent temperament. However, at other times Gama could be strangely sensitive - e.g. preventing his men from sacking Calicut when it lay broken and vulnerable, forbidding his ships from buying cattle for meat in Indian markets (didn't want to offend Hindu hosts).

While I don't want to generalize beyond Gama for this article, it is not incorrect to point out that the Portuguese (and not only Gama) were pirates. It's what they did. They routinely parked ships off Mount d'Eli and picked off civilian merchant shipping indiscriminately. They raided vulnerable ports with frequency, for wares or "tribute money". Most of this was greed, not strategy. The people of the Malabar coast of India (as well as on the Swahili coast of East Africa), whose entire livelihoods rested on commerce and shipping (these towns were not self-sufficient), must have seen the Portuguese armadas much as the peoples of British and French coasts perceived the Vikings - terrifying pirates who came once a year, wreaked havoc, robbery and murder for a spell, and then left by the Spring. Now, I'm sure some Vikings might feel offended at being reduced to a stock caricature, and might want to emphasize their own version of their voyages. But whitewashing their actions for some nationalist glorification is also not fair. There is no getting away from the fact that the coastal peoples were brutalized and terrified, and that perception is worth telling. Walrasiad (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  ---Okay, is it me or do you hate the portguese? You said, and I quote, "that the Portuguese (and not only Gama) were  pirates". This is incredibly hipocritical. Now, pardon me for saying bad thing about other countries, but Castella (Spain) had this vicious temptation to fight (unnecessarily, if I may say) Portugal, for family feuds and territorial disputes. And may I say that they stole the Canaries from the portuguese, however the portuguese were rather reckless about their findings at the time.

The british were didn't respect Portugal alot, too. For example, during the Napoleon invasions, the portuguese court went to Brazil, with the fear of being killed and deposed by the french. Of course, as Portugal had an alliance with Britain, broke the Continental Blockage (see Cont. Blockage's main article). After that, the french invaded Portugal, and these asked Britain for assistance. After the war (the invasions, pardon me for calling them the "war"), the british took command of Portugal. Needless to say that they did so in the manner that most pleased them. Since we're at the Napoleon topic, I can also say that the french robbed a lot of Portuguese relics and have not yet been returned, but I digress... At a certain time, Castella's king was also Portugal's king. Portugal suffered from this, not only for the castellan "choke-hold" but also from the territories that were being taken by the dutch, the french, and of course, their great "pals", the british. What was this all for, really? Just to point out that no one is a saint. The portuguese weren't really pirates, they were discoverers. They set out to find new lands, and they did so. They are navigators with a tendency to fight the "infidel" (which I deem pointless, but those were very religious times), and I think that at this time, yes, the portuguese were a little bit... "mean", let's put it that way, but the times that came after that showed us that the other european countries can also be "mean". I don't intend to cause a feeling of hatred on anyone, but civilization DOES evolve. That's what happened. But it was indeed very petty of you to say that the portuguese were pirates, completely ignoring that they opened the entire world, almost single-handedly (pardon me for taking sides) to europe. Point being, everyone has highs and lows, and should not be judged by half of the story. Guilherme Cruz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.170.151 (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

he did mor then one trep

he is old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.163.94.97 (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What on earth is the following nonsense supposed to mean?

... as well as the Atlantic and the Indian oceans entirely and definitively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Gama vs. Da Gama

No one says "Da Gama" in Portuguese. When the last name is used, the preposition is omitted. FilipeS 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Da Gama's sister was Bloody Mary

Interesting to know, but in English a lot of things are written differently from what they are in Portuguese and Spanish. For example, neither Christopher Columbus, Prince Henry the Navigator, Bartholomew Diaz or Magellan were actually called that where they came from. Writing just Gama would been seen as wrong in English, even though in the original language (Portuguese) it is correct. --DavidLeslie 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the "Da" would be a very small change, though. Nowadays, there's a push to use transcriptions as close to the original as possible in various contexts. For example, if I type "Peking" in the Wikipedia search engine, I'm redirected to a page named "Beijing". This is certainly a more drastic name change than "Da Gama" → "Gama", yet it has come to be accepted. FilipeS 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Beijing is now the usual word in English despite having been Peking for decades. Maybe in future, most native English speakers will use Gama rather than da Gama, but they certainly don't do that right now. 'Da', 'de' or 'van der' is usually retained before surnames. The article should reflect the most common English usage - even though it is wrong according to the original language. In English, Napoli is still Naples, Roma is still Rome, Lisboa is still Lisbon, Fernao de Magalhaes is still Magellan, Bartholomeu Dias is still Bartholomew Diaz. In the Portuguese Wikipedia articles they don't write London even though that's the correct way to write it. I am preparing a book for publishing on (Da)Gama. I am sidestepping the issue in the book by always referring to him as Vasco da Gama - not Gama or da Gama. --DavidLeslie 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that most English speakers don't use "Gama" or "Da Gama" at all. Certainly fewer do than those who used to use "Peking". Only academics are probably familiar with the name. Including the article in the surname is a French and Italian custom. I think someone confused us and the Spaniards with Italians. :-( FilipeS 20:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant that 'Da', 'de' or 'van der' is usually retained before surnames when speaking English, e.g Da Vinci. No native English speakers would describe Leonardo Da Vinci simply as Vinci. In English language books on the Portuguese discoveries I have frequently seen Da Gama written rather than Vasco Da Gama. Virtually everyone in English used Peking rather than Beijing, but now uses Beijing rather than Peking. --DavidLeslie 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you're writing a book on Vasco da Gama, at least keep the two words apart, Da Gama, not DaGama. We don't do that, either. Regards. FilipeS 21:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I always keep them apart. In Portuguese, do they spell da with a capital D (Vasco Da Gama), or with a small d (Vasco da Gama). What about Magellan ? Is it Fernao De Magalhaes, or Fernao de Magalhaes ? --DavidLeslie 21:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't capitalize the prepositions nowadays. It's Vasco da Gama and Fernão de Magalhães. I don't know if it was always this way, though. FilipeS 21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama and Leonardo da Vinci are not comparable, since 'da Gama' it's his name a 'da Vinci' indicates that is comes from Vinci. In Portuguese we say Da Vinci too. Rui 18/02/07

When saying "da" the English do not know (or usually care) what the "da" means. They don't think to themselves that means "from" so I'll say it - or that "da" doesn't mean "from" so I won't say it. I'm English and I don't have clue what the "da" in da Gama means. English Wikipedia should reflect what native English speakers say, which is "da Gama". If you suggest using what is said in the original language, which would be only Gama in this case, why aren't you suggesting on Portuguese Wikipedia that they write London instead of Londres ? --Jon English 22:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both replies above, actually:

1. The Italian preposition da means pretty much the same as the Portuguese preposition da. The fact that it tends to be kept in Italian names is purely a question of tradition.
2. The name Vasco da Gama is not English, so what English speakers think or do not think about it is irrelevant. This is not a name which has been translated into English (like Lisboa is in Portuguese). It's simply a Portuguese name which English speakers are used to misspelling. FilipeS 17:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Linguistically, when it comes to words of foreign origin, the English, as the world's worst linguists, do most things wrongly. You know that in Portuguese it should be Gama. I now know that in Portuguese it should be Gama. However, the rest of the native English speakers don't know it should be Gama. The English (rightly or wrongly) always precede the surname with a "da" "de" or "der" when there is one. There is no reason why on English Wikipedia that there should be an exception to this common usage solely for Vasco da Gama. Why should he be any different ? --Jon English 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because an encyclopedia is supposed to correct mistakes and errors...? Don't know... It is just an idea... The Ogre 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Wikipedia is not a usage guide. Wikipedia repeats information that is found in reliable sources (which are preferably in English). Even the use of diacritics in names (which I favor) remains contentious in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If so, will you be informing everyone on Portuguese Wikipedia that London is spelt L-O-N-D-O-N, rather than L-O-N-D-R-E-S ? Will you be changing the spelling on English Wikipedia of Milan, Venice and Naples, which are spelt Milano, Venezia and Napoli in the original language ? Or is this principle of education to be limited only to Vasco da Gama? --Jon English 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is rather silly... Who cares if Vasco da Gama is to refered to as Gama or as Da Gama? Is it really important? Shouldn't we be worrying ourselves with more important and substantive issues? If Da Gama is the usual way he is refered to in English, then that's how he should be refered to (even if a note explaining that in Portuguese he is just called Gama would be usefull)! There are no clear cut views on the translation/adoption of names from a specific language into another. Sometimes you use the original as is, sometimes you completly translate, sometimes you don't translate but make some changes, sometimes you change the previous criteria! Yes, an encyclopedia is supposed to be descriptive, but it's not easy to describe the world... that is why an encyclopedia is mostly about what people say the world is! And when there is no consensus, all serious and sourced views must be presented. Now, this Gama versus Da Gama issue, is it really that important? The Ogre 14:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Now, this Gama versus Da Gama issue, is it really that important?" - No --Jon English 15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is important.

"Gama" in English means a Greek letter: "gamma". Alpha, beta, gamma, delta.

"Da Gama" is a famous Portuguese explorer, somebody we were tested on in school when we were 10 years old. We learned about Da Gama at the same time we were learning about Prince Henry the Navigator and Magellan. Social Studies class. The early exploration phase of Canadian history.

Varlaam (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done

The article now uses English usage. Portuguese usage is immaterial.

I wonder what the BBC says?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/da_gama_vasco.shtml

Da Gama? You're kidding. Knock me over with a feather.

Varlaam (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, in Portuguese the only correct encyclopedic way to refer to such a person in a text is Vasco da Gama - yes, you have to repeat the full name at every turn. 'Gama' is too nondescript a name to be used in isolation, if it was invulgar or otherwise notable or you had two surnames, you could get away with it (ex: only Camões for Luís de Camões, Souza Cardoso for Amadeo de Souza Cardoso, etc. However, citation forms would include all the particles - 'de Matos, Alice' is not at all the same as 'Matos, Alice'. In short, the rules on how you treat abbreviated names in prose depend on the language and culture the text is in, not the name's source. 87.103.125.82 (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, the push to use names as close as possible to the source instead of the traditional ones is at best misguided. The traditional names are usually an attempt to be as phonetically accurate as the target language allows, whereas the new ones are just spelling pronunciations which ot1h are only possible because english, in contrast to most languages, has pretty much no spelling phonotactics nowadays, and otoh can and do often result in greater mangling of the original than the traditional ones. 87.103.125.82 (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Beijing" is ignorant nonsense. It exhibits either ignorance about the way that place-names change in other languages, or smarmy flattery to the Chinese in the hope of landing bigger trade contracts. Does one say Vienna or Wien? Athens or Atinai? Jerusalem or Yerushalayim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama

Vasco da Gama DIDN'T FOUND India .he found another path to India To escape from taxes . If we search ancient India in people asks section . _{who found India ?} Here the question is very very wrong . During his journey, da Gama slaughtered hundreds of people , attacking ships and firing cannons at trading posts up and down the east African coast. In one instance, he ordered the massacre of 380 people — including women and children — aboard a Muslim ship returning from Mecca.

His brutal practices continued once he reached Calicut. There, da Gama destroyed the trading post and killed 38 hostages. Once he had the Calicut ruler’s surrender, da Gama went south to Cochin (known as Kochi today). There, he made an alliance with the local ruler, further securing Portugal’s position as a dominant spice trader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.19.208.235 (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2016

Vasco da Gama's personal details listed on the right pane indicate Sines or Vidigueira as his place of birth and in the 'Early section' it correctly states that he was born in Sines. Please remove Vidigueira as the place of birth for Vasco da Gama, it is well documented that he was born and raised in Sines during his father's - Estêvão da Gama nomination to Sines Governor (Alcaide-mor) by the King D.Fernando de Portugal.

In addition and through the Order of Santiago 1480 where he appears in the register, it is possible to more accurately estimate his date of birth, to calculate we must subtract from year 1480 the age '11' or '12' in which boys were ordered the first tonsure (prima tonsura), the result being the years 1468 or 1469 not 1460. Vasco da Gama and he's brothers: Paulo, João Sodré registrtation in the Matriz of São Salvador Church it's the only properly documented life fact until 1492.

For further confirmation I suggest contacting Casa de Vasco da Gama - Museum dedicated to him in Sines, Matriz of São Salvador Church where he appears in the register and the Camara Municipal de Sines - Sines Municipal Council.

Celiamatosmarquis (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Partly done: Need sources for the year of birth. Burden is upon the requester to provide them. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Death

Did someone know here that he died 24 december 1524 and not 23 december 1524 -> http://www.britannica.com/biography/Vasco-da-Gama --Danielvis08 (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vasco da Gama/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

has unsourced statements plange 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

when he died

2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.165.22.43 (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

217.165.22.43 (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

anh da chich hang tram nguoi ke trong do co ca con trai

202.151.174.130 (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

anh da chich hang tram nguoi ke trong do co ca nu hoang va nha vua "Dm" Vasco da Gamma

Trantrongduc093 (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Typo in link

...given the newly created County of Vidigueira in 1519. County should be Count. 

Rob Frost (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant Racist's List

Da Gama was ranked 86th Michael H. Hart's [[The 100|list of the most influential figures in histo So what? Michael H. Hart is an irrelevant racist, why the heck would anyone care about his crazy list of stuff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.113.3.110 (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

How can we be sure you are not a racist yourself, and should then be ignored? -- NIC1138 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem like an ignorant ideologist yourself as, according to wikipedia, Hart's a separatist, which is very different from being a racist. Wikipedia really gets trolled by some snowflakes these times. Try to be unbiased, everything else hurts knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.146.146.65 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vasco da Gama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111222043247/http://www.oldnewspublishing.com/dagamma.htm to http://www.oldnewspublishing.com/dagamma.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/WestEurope/DaGama.CP.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Curious phrase in First Voyage section

The First Voyage section contains the curious phrase, "Two of the vessels were as naus or newly built for the voyage", which was added about seven years ago. I've no idea if it written that way in the source, but as naus doesn't mean “as new”, it means “the ships”. And a nau, as a specific type of ship, is the same as a carrack. The Portuguese article states the ships were naus (ie carracks), newly-built for the voyage (uma nau ….. construída especialmente para esta viagem) so I've gone with that here. If anyone has access to the source, and can shed more light on what the source actually says, perhaps they could bring it here. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(Found it: The source actually says “Of his four ships, two were described as naus, newly built for the voyage” (Diffie, p178); so the correction is correct. Problem solved! Moonraker12 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vasco da Gama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213003604/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/vasco.html to https://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/vasco.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhjg jh hj h h h h h h h hh h 124.149.217.36 (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

That his name be changed to Vasco De Gama as this is his real name Anon 78.16.6.21 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. RudolfRed (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Phoenicians, Herodotus and the first recorded circumnavigation of Africa

I propose that information pertaining to the Phoenicians purported circumnavigation of Africa be added as this gives some context for what is da Gamma's most famous accomplishment. This claim considered by Herodotus has some mainstream scholarly acceptance. Harburg (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see scholarly sources (and not articles in the popular press) that support the credibility of that story. The most scholarly source I could find in a quick Google search is rather skeptical. - Donald Albury 22:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Romans in India

The article says that Vasco da Gama was the first European to reach India by sea. I beg to differ and am tempted to edit the page to show it. What about the Roman Empire? It was so extensive that they could sail not that far from Egypt (or at times even-closer Mesopotamia) to India with relative ease. What made da Gama so noteworthy is that he had to go around Africa to accomplish it---something the Arabs and Phoenicians had done long before. Heff01 (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have articles about contacts between the Roman Empire and India; see Indo-Roman trade relations and Indo–Roman relations. I suspect that memory of Roman contacts with India had been forgotten by da Gama's time, with direct contact between Europe and India severed by the spread of Islam across the Near and Middle East. What the Portuguese discovered was a route to India that avoided the Islamic realms. Be bold and edit the article, but please cite reliable sources. - Donald Albury 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good! Heff01 (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Also the trade continued under the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire until the early rapid spread of Islam. Heff01 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Grammar needs a rewrite

It is obvious that much of this article was written by someone for whom English is a second language. It needs to be gone through and much of the awkward phrasing changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama and Fernao de Magallhaes together

I really like to know which captain took Maghallaes (or Magellan later knowed) as his servant and sailor. I'm not sure but I think that is Vasco da Gama, but I must not live in a doubt about that. Thanks to every historican who help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.140.172 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no Vasco da Gama church in Kochi

The link is for the church of St Francis. Mmj125 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Vasco da gama is a coloniser 2.99.120.95 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2022

There is a spelling mistake on "Samorim of Calicut". Its actually Zamorin of Calicut. Please refer link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zamorin 90.216.134.196 (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)  Done - Donald Albury 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

1473

In the map on the right, "1473" seems to wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.184.242 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Birth year?

His birth is given in the lead as "c. 1460s", in the info box as "1460 or 1469", and in the "Early life" section as "1460". Which is it? Nogoodbooks (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

You can find sources for both 1460 and 1469 as his birth year in a Google search. There are many things in history that we do not know for sure. - Donald Albury 00:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Vasco da Gama chirch

Hosanna Mandir Vasco da Gama, Goa होसंना मंदिर

This is the church name Gama2012 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources discussing the church? While I see a few sites that indicate it exists, I see nothing that would justify mentioning it in this article. Donald Albury 17:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023

Vasco Da Gama had 4 voyages to India 14.202.240.229 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)